The Camp is not yet a "middle class liberal disaster"
Scrumpy | 01.09.2009 11:13 | Climate Chaos | Education
A response to criticism that the Camp for Climate Action has become a "middle class liberal media disaster"
I have just got back home from 4 days at the Blackheath camp, and have read the ongoing critisms of the camp with great interest - see in particular
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/08/437091.html, the comments on which prompted this article, which i felt warranted a post of its own.
i, along with others, am embarrassed to be associated with the stunt-lobbying-at-it's-worst, lame-shit-that-doesn't-really-engage-anyone-or-confront-anything that some elements - often those who speak and act "on behalf of climate camp" - for example the 'Rambling Raffle of Resistance".
And i went to this year's camp with a degree of reluctance and an expectation that it had indeed been 100% taken over by posh middleclass student types whose "rebellion" is a reaction to being told by mummy to tidy their rooms - because that is overwhelmingly the impression an observer might get from the CCA website, much of the media coverage, and the CCA media strategy which seems to be to play on the good (MC, peaceful) protestor / bad (WC, violent) protestor and persuade the public that the CCA falls into the former category.
I went to the camp to find out if this was true, and i am very pleased to report that this is not the impression that i had.
Don't get me wrong, the middle class student element does form a disproportionate amount of the numbers at the camp, and is probably the most visible (more visible than the actual numbers) due to their dominating nature / eloquence and confidence in speaking in front of large groups. But that is certainly NOT THE ALL OF IT, and i suggest that any activists writing off the camp as an afluentstudent-liberal-lovein should GO and find out for themselves that there is so much more to it than that.
For example, on the Saturday afternoon there was an extremely well attended (250+ people) discussion / workshop on "green authoritarianism" and anarchy, led by (what seemed to me) the fairly disillusioned Sh!ft magazine collective. The discussion focused on whether the camp was indeed tending to reformism and losing the revolutionary anarchist politics of its originators.
Granted, once the discussion was open to the floor, there were many ('bout 50% of the total) comments from people coming from a liberal perspective, who literally had no idea what could possibly be wrong with using lobbying for political change as a tactic; the example posed by the sh!ft 'panel' was whether the CCA should do as Plane Stupid do and stunt-lobby for the implementation of policies such as higher taxes on air travel, and there were many baffled-looking expressions in the crowd on the faces of those who had never considered that this might be a self-defeating tactic for a movement that aims to destroy capitalism, hierarchy and the state.
Simultaneously, the other half of the comments were from those of a more anarchist background, who found it amazing that anyone at the camp might be unaware of the contradiction of a radical anti-state movement lobbying for the state to implement change.
And the conclusion of the discussion? One of the 'panel' tried to summarise the situation by saying something along the lines of "it seems like the CCA is dominate by liberals who might as well join the Green Party, or better the Labour Party as they will have more influence ont he policies you want, or even the Conservatives since they're going to be in power next year".
And, crucially, he was met with a barrage of shouts of "NO!" from about half of those in the room - those who do much of the work in putting on the camp who do hold those revolutionary anarchist values at the core of what we do. And who understand that most people in this country almost certainly do not hold those values, and this movement is going to have to try and spread them; and this means that people - whether they are liberals, conservatives or whatever - are going to come to what we do, often out of curiosity as much as anything else, and we CAN'T tell them to fuck off for being woolly liberals, any more then put them up against a wall and shoot 'em, but must be ready to engage and debate and convince and build both the movement's numbers and also the strength of its ideological foundations (which surely everyone will agree, debating with someone you disagree with does very effectively).
And taking the workshop as an example - i am sure that a good proportion of the 'liberals' in that discussion learnt a new perspective, came into contact with ideas they hadn't considered much before, and crucially wanted to explore those ideas more, born out by the small proportion of them bought a copy of sh!ft.
There aren't many forums where so many people who had had such little exposure to revolutionary anarchist ideas spent 2 hours engaging in debate about them (when does THAT happen at, say, the London anarchist bookfair?) and i felt it was fucking brilliant.
The Camp for Climate Action this year was more accessible than any previous camp for newcomers. While this remains the case, it being co-opted by a liberal agenda is of course a risk. but i don't think this has happened yet - apart from maybe the jollyhockeysticks-stuntlobbying brigade and the CCA media team which seems to be petrified of mentioning anti-capitalism and anti-statism - which is why it seems that those who DON'T GO to the CCA are under the impression that it has been co-opted (cos they just get their impression from MSM, and unfortunately the postings on Indymedia in the name of the 'Camp' which seem to be far more dominated by the jollyhockeysticks that by a broader representation of those who are there and do much of the work).
When the cops asked to be allowed to patrol the site, twice, there were liberal voices arguing that we should capitulate to these requests (based on observations of the Yorkshire neighbourhood meeting on the issue) -Yet the overwhelming weight of voices cried "no fucking way" and as a consequence (as of Monday morning) the coppers never came on site (in uniform, anyway). Is anyone suggesting that we have a liberal witch-hunt, and prevent those who hold those views from speaking, or from entering the camp? At the neighbourhood meeting those voices were convincingly out-argued. And that does unfortunately mean that there is a risk that the time will come when the liberal voices win the argument, and the Camp for Climate Action becomes a Friends of the Earth liberal climate love-in - which is all the more reason why those of us who hold those core values of the camp dear MUST BE THERE, must make the case, must defend our movement.
Those who pronounce the liberal co-option of the Camp are speaking too soon; it is a risk, but it hasn't happened yet. The action to take is not to just moan about it on Indymedia but to confront where it has become a problem (eg. the media team) and change it by the only way change to the Camp can be realised - by getting involved and doing something about it.
Otherwise, your absence will lead to co-option and takeover.
.
.
.
.
Comments welcome, particularly from others who were actually at the camp and haven't just formulated their ideas from inaccurate and incomplete media reports (is mine one of these???). Did you leave the camp feeling that it has been taken over by a liberal agenda? Or are you as optimistic as me?
![](/img/extlink.gif)
i, along with others, am embarrassed to be associated with the stunt-lobbying-at-it's-worst, lame-shit-that-doesn't-really-engage-anyone-or-confront-anything that some elements - often those who speak and act "on behalf of climate camp" - for example the 'Rambling Raffle of Resistance".
And i went to this year's camp with a degree of reluctance and an expectation that it had indeed been 100% taken over by posh middleclass student types whose "rebellion" is a reaction to being told by mummy to tidy their rooms - because that is overwhelmingly the impression an observer might get from the CCA website, much of the media coverage, and the CCA media strategy which seems to be to play on the good (MC, peaceful) protestor / bad (WC, violent) protestor and persuade the public that the CCA falls into the former category.
I went to the camp to find out if this was true, and i am very pleased to report that this is not the impression that i had.
Don't get me wrong, the middle class student element does form a disproportionate amount of the numbers at the camp, and is probably the most visible (more visible than the actual numbers) due to their dominating nature / eloquence and confidence in speaking in front of large groups. But that is certainly NOT THE ALL OF IT, and i suggest that any activists writing off the camp as an afluentstudent-liberal-lovein should GO and find out for themselves that there is so much more to it than that.
For example, on the Saturday afternoon there was an extremely well attended (250+ people) discussion / workshop on "green authoritarianism" and anarchy, led by (what seemed to me) the fairly disillusioned Sh!ft magazine collective. The discussion focused on whether the camp was indeed tending to reformism and losing the revolutionary anarchist politics of its originators.
Granted, once the discussion was open to the floor, there were many ('bout 50% of the total) comments from people coming from a liberal perspective, who literally had no idea what could possibly be wrong with using lobbying for political change as a tactic; the example posed by the sh!ft 'panel' was whether the CCA should do as Plane Stupid do and stunt-lobby for the implementation of policies such as higher taxes on air travel, and there were many baffled-looking expressions in the crowd on the faces of those who had never considered that this might be a self-defeating tactic for a movement that aims to destroy capitalism, hierarchy and the state.
Simultaneously, the other half of the comments were from those of a more anarchist background, who found it amazing that anyone at the camp might be unaware of the contradiction of a radical anti-state movement lobbying for the state to implement change.
And the conclusion of the discussion? One of the 'panel' tried to summarise the situation by saying something along the lines of "it seems like the CCA is dominate by liberals who might as well join the Green Party, or better the Labour Party as they will have more influence ont he policies you want, or even the Conservatives since they're going to be in power next year".
And, crucially, he was met with a barrage of shouts of "NO!" from about half of those in the room - those who do much of the work in putting on the camp who do hold those revolutionary anarchist values at the core of what we do. And who understand that most people in this country almost certainly do not hold those values, and this movement is going to have to try and spread them; and this means that people - whether they are liberals, conservatives or whatever - are going to come to what we do, often out of curiosity as much as anything else, and we CAN'T tell them to fuck off for being woolly liberals, any more then put them up against a wall and shoot 'em, but must be ready to engage and debate and convince and build both the movement's numbers and also the strength of its ideological foundations (which surely everyone will agree, debating with someone you disagree with does very effectively).
And taking the workshop as an example - i am sure that a good proportion of the 'liberals' in that discussion learnt a new perspective, came into contact with ideas they hadn't considered much before, and crucially wanted to explore those ideas more, born out by the small proportion of them bought a copy of sh!ft.
There aren't many forums where so many people who had had such little exposure to revolutionary anarchist ideas spent 2 hours engaging in debate about them (when does THAT happen at, say, the London anarchist bookfair?) and i felt it was fucking brilliant.
The Camp for Climate Action this year was more accessible than any previous camp for newcomers. While this remains the case, it being co-opted by a liberal agenda is of course a risk. but i don't think this has happened yet - apart from maybe the jollyhockeysticks-stuntlobbying brigade and the CCA media team which seems to be petrified of mentioning anti-capitalism and anti-statism - which is why it seems that those who DON'T GO to the CCA are under the impression that it has been co-opted (cos they just get their impression from MSM, and unfortunately the postings on Indymedia in the name of the 'Camp' which seem to be far more dominated by the jollyhockeysticks that by a broader representation of those who are there and do much of the work).
When the cops asked to be allowed to patrol the site, twice, there were liberal voices arguing that we should capitulate to these requests (based on observations of the Yorkshire neighbourhood meeting on the issue) -Yet the overwhelming weight of voices cried "no fucking way" and as a consequence (as of Monday morning) the coppers never came on site (in uniform, anyway). Is anyone suggesting that we have a liberal witch-hunt, and prevent those who hold those views from speaking, or from entering the camp? At the neighbourhood meeting those voices were convincingly out-argued. And that does unfortunately mean that there is a risk that the time will come when the liberal voices win the argument, and the Camp for Climate Action becomes a Friends of the Earth liberal climate love-in - which is all the more reason why those of us who hold those core values of the camp dear MUST BE THERE, must make the case, must defend our movement.
Those who pronounce the liberal co-option of the Camp are speaking too soon; it is a risk, but it hasn't happened yet. The action to take is not to just moan about it on Indymedia but to confront where it has become a problem (eg. the media team) and change it by the only way change to the Camp can be realised - by getting involved and doing something about it.
Otherwise, your absence will lead to co-option and takeover.
.
.
.
.
Comments welcome, particularly from others who were actually at the camp and haven't just formulated their ideas from inaccurate and incomplete media reports (is mine one of these???). Did you leave the camp feeling that it has been taken over by a liberal agenda? Or are you as optimistic as me?
Scrumpy
Comments
Hide the following 29 comments
Taken over?
01.09.2009 11:42
Oh, and they're young too? Pour coals on their spotty bourgeois heads.
I was also a bit surprised to hear people breaking ideas up into factions. "Anarchist" in camp terms obviously equals direct-action hero, while "liberal" means pussy-footing, woolly minded lickspittle. In a way, that's sort of fair, or at least, a caricature of fair. In another way, who is an anarchist to say how someone else should be thinking? Anarchy is not about thought control, is it?
And what is actually anarchic about direct action? It still demands attention from the state, and the state's media.
These are questions, not assertions, by the way.
T
Obvious thought
01.09.2009 11:54
Returning the heath to its former state is part of the camp not a job for the few that are left
Still at the camp
Life
01.09.2009 12:03
AH
You're right
01.09.2009 12:08
T
Helping with clear up
01.09.2009 12:16
Of course we could be cynical and suggest that the same Middle Class media lovies who enjoyed their time talking to the BBC, Guardian etc etc feel that manual labour is a little beneath them (snigger)
Camper
Direct action and anarchism
01.09.2009 12:25
Direct action, for me at least, is differentiated from other action by the word direct. You might think this is trivial and nit-picking but it's important really.
Not waiting for some idiots in the government and media to act on our behalf. Not taking symbolic action - prancing around in a costume in the hope that this might somehow save the human race and the other species staring extinction in the face. Direct action, in my eyes, has little to do with "attention from the state, and the state's media".
Direct action is about having a decent attempt at having a bigger impact on matters which are important to you. As the defendants of the Ratcliffe power station occupation trial pointed out, by obstructing a coal power station they could achieve a much greater reduction in co2 emissions that day than they can by not driving, flying or eating meat. Media attention is secondary to the main goal of the direct action, whatever that goal is.
Personally, I think this attitude is perfectly in line with anarchism. With no faith in the capitalist system and the government that protects it, why should media attention be of primary importance when taking direct action?
Anarchist
Oi middle classes
01.09.2009 12:30
Veteran
Oi Anarchist
01.09.2009 13:11
There is quite a bit I could say on this subject but the camp is about climate action ( remember that ) so I will keep my comments to that that is relevant.
Firstly we have, by most scientists opinions, hardly any time at all to change our current course to climate disaster. Personally I don't think this allows us to move to an entirely different political structure. Do you? Really?
Secondly every country needs to reduce emissions by a significant amount, need real incentives to do so AND need a central body tracking and reporting progress and taking action if necessary - only effective governments can provide the frameworks / organisation / enforcement in order to do so.
Thirdly moving to a form of anarchism will not remove the pent up demand for our economy. So the corporations we all despise will still be in business BUT they will have no government to regulate them. What do you think they will do then? Will they say "oh ok everything's different lets by responsible" OR will they hire private militias who answer to no-one except those who are paying them who report to no-one but the consumers.
Seriously you have to be a MORON to be an anarchist.
Matthew of the middle classes
Matthew of the middle classes
e-mail:
matthew.percy@hotmail.co.uk
For somebody calling himself Anarchist
01.09.2009 13:14
One of the Middle Class you hate so much
addition
01.09.2009 13:28
however from walking around and attending talks, the people there were mainly white, middle class and quite trendyish looking
and the results from talks were disappointing too, there seemed to be too much reliance on diy projects (housing coops/direct action etc) rather than an emphasis to reach out to society...i mentioned reaching out to trade unions for example, but got told they were too unwieldy (which they are) and the idea was immediately dismissed...
too me, all change in the past has been through mass mobilisation. end of story...to see direct action as an end in itself is not gonna get anywhere...
riku
You give yourself away
01.09.2009 13:43
T
Well wrote T,We are aiming to destroy class
01.09.2009 14:17
Gypsy biker
Gotta have the middle class involved
01.09.2009 14:40
Yes, wanky students can be a bit earnest and annoying - but some of these so-called wankers will probably be the decision makers and policy advisors in ten or more years time. It's going to take decades to make an effective impact on the environment - no amount of brick-throwing and rioting will make it happen any sooner.
Get the bourgeois on message now and they will be the ones calling the shots in 2020 and beyond - when the real changes will start to kick in.
Nothing in the UK has ever been achieved politically without harnessing the broad base support of the middle classes.
Answer me this: in the UK what social movements of any real significance have been impeded, held back or diluted by the so-called middle classes? If you're answer is "the complete and total overthrow of the capitalist system" then you lose ten points for being a toss pot with no clue.
I would wager that the whingeing 'proles' on this website are no doubt the biggest bourgeois social chameleons of all - inverted snobs with affected cockney accents. My arse.
Now, let me get back to reading my copy of The Guardian whilst listening to Radio 4 and enjoying a crayfish and rocket sandwich from Marks & Spencer. Good day to you, Sir.
Bourgeois 'til I drop...
Why a yurt is better than a country cottage
01.09.2009 14:51
aka
Homepage:
http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/new_homes/article6812919.ece
straight from the horse's mouth
01.09.2009 15:00
"climate change is a class issue...climate camp is dominated by middle class people."
"climate camp is stiched up by a middle class elite"
it's all about class
Gotta have the homeless involved
01.09.2009 15:02
Homeless
Back at you, copper
01.09.2009 16:16
Does it get you all excited watching the people who actually give a toss about something having a go at each other? Do you like stirring them up? You betcha.
Do not listen to this shit, people.
T
Climat Camp auction - I was told by middle class to come back later "to clean"
01.09.2009 18:45
Thanks for that. This hasn't been forgotten.
anon
Some thoughts
01.09.2009 18:54
I have no confidence in the state to solve the environemental problems that we face, but at the same time I really couldn't care less if they impose a huge tax on short-haul flights (at least internal flights, out of the country is a different matter). What's so attractive about using a method of transport that not only assists in the destruction of the environment but also means that the state knows where you have been and when? The only problem I see with short-haul taxes is that there will be no reciprocal benefit, e.g. the construction of a decent rail network. Instead any tax money gets swallowed up into war, privatisation, consultants, etc. etc.
With regard to the ongoing argument about Climate Camp being taken over by liberals, students, or whoever else isn't considered appropriate to participate, wouldn't it be a little better to take the time to try and argue and convince these people that anarchist arguments are legitimate and worthwhile? Sitting on here ranting about white middle-class liberal students doesn't achieve anything apart from division and making yourselves look bitter. There's obviously something that attracts these people to events such as Climate Camp, my guess would be that it's an interest in environmental politics. If your solutions to the world's problems are more valid, then prove it.
I should probably prepare myself for hostility. It's always depressingly predictable watching the left disintegrate into tiny little factions.
C
Indymedia seriously needs a user login system to avoid all this trolling
01.09.2009 19:53
We are united in the fact we want a fairer world that isn't so much of a polluted shithole. Sure class is an important issue but can't people see Indymedia is being abused by persons unknown, in a divide and rule tactic. Those who want to maintain the status quo have a vested interest in this happening.
If Indymedia had a proper comment system, regular posters could build up a reputation and trolls would be easily identified. It's true it would reduce anonymity, but there are ways around that if anonymity is important.
Other online forums have user moderation systems so comments from trolls, nutcases and idiots are easily marked down and can be automatically hidden if people want. It would be more in line with decentralised ideals as well instead of the current centralised method where troll posts are hidden.
anon
Middle class liberal reform makes me die a little bit inside...
02.09.2009 02:16
@Matthew of the middle classes
"Firstly we have, by most scientists opinions, hardly any time at all to change our current course to climate disaster. Personally I don't think this allows us to move to an entirely different political structure. Do you? Really?"
Yes I do. It's not a case of "save the world" or "bring about anarchy" and choose really fucking quick otherwise you'll be boiled alive or live in a total police state. For a start, both saving this planet and bringing about total liberation (anarchy) is together possible. Secondly, saving the Earth isn't possible without bringing about anarchy (or going in this direction), as a combined praxis, despite anarchy being possibly without saving the world.
The rational behind this logic that 'C' claims is not being provided (I'm not going to judge this statement, as I'm not sure if rational explanations are being provided at CC), is that the corporate-state complex is not going to make any realistic attempts at saving the Earth. There is too much profit in raping the Earth, you only need to look at climate profits from Shell, BP, RBS, Barclays, Tescos and so on to see this. Even if corporations and the state wanted to save the Earth's inhabitants (ha! now that's a good one), they couldn't if they tried. Corporations would loose money, fall and liquidate, while the state would be banging legislation against a brick wall of corporate power. Thirdly, even if by some fucking miracle the state and corporations did rescue us (ha! even better joke), it would be a constant battle to keep them not trashing our planet [again] - which they would just do later anyway.
Yes the state and it's corporations are going to green-wash themselves, but not everyone understands why they are doing this. These welfarist and reformist attempts to 'keep us alive' is not only to make us have faith in their actions, but also to make us believe they can make positive change for the climate and environment - which they will never do. To put it simply, the state is the enemy because (even if they wanted to) they can't help us, and capitalism is the nightmare that got us into this mess in the first place. You think it can really help? Unlimited growth of capitalism caused climate change, you think we can grow out of it?
Don't make me laugh!
"Secondly every country needs to reduce emissions by a significant amount, need real incentives to do so..."
Yes every country needs to reduce emissions, and needs incentives. A lot of lost profit would be a fucking good start, followed by a impending dissolving of corporate/state power, so just as they think "fuck, we'll have to actually change" we tell them all to fuck off anyway.
"...AND need a central body tracking and reporting progress and taking action if necessary - only effective governments can provide the frameworks / organisation / enforcement in order to do so."
Central bodies, especially governmental ones, are inevitable to corrupt (look at the UN, WTO, G20, G8, the list goes on and on and on). They have these frameworks, organisations and enforcement abilities, they just really don't care because money tastes better than freedom. Kyoto, Agenda 21, do these failures mean nothing? Of course the state want to make you think "if you just give us a bit more power it'll work" - that's how Hitler got his way, remember?
"Thirdly moving to a form of anarchism will not remove the pent up demand for our economy."
Yes it would as anarchism would remove the entire economy and NOT replace it. If some idiot comes along, or group of, trying to bring an economy about - bring in the people's militia.
@Bourgeois 'til I drop...
Firstly, I can't believe you used the Tesco's slogan to put as your name - nice.
"Since when did having the middle-class on board frustrate mass grassroots protest in Britain?" - Since when did they not?!
Which class was it again that predominantly left movements when the following happened?
* The decrease in support for slave abolition when welfare conditions were imposed.
* The major drop in support for the Black Panthers when they declared to defend themselves by any means necessary against cops and the state (eventually bringing about civil rights).
* The major drop in support when the Suffragettes were granted the vote for women over the age of thirty.
No suprise, it was the liberal, welfarist, reformist loving middle-class. They always join the ride for social change until it seems like the state have bothered to do something and then fuck off home. Change starts with the working class, and ends with the working class. Afterall, the middle class have "too much to sacrifice" compared to the rest of us.
"It's going to take decades to make an effective impact on the environment - no amount of brick-throwing and rioting will make it happen any sooner."
Or, it could take months or years if opressive institutions collapse. All that is needed IS enough brick-throwing and rioting. Have we already forgotten Cable Street, Poll Tax etc?
"Get the bourgeois on message now and they will be the ones calling the shots in 2020 and beyond - when the real changes will start to kick in."
I hope you're joking, wait a decade for the elite to save a burning planet? Get lost! If by then you get into positions of power you'll be corrupted further by greed and forgot everything.
"Nothing in the UK has ever been achieved politically without harnessing the broad base support of the middle classes." - Apart from every form of positive social change of course!
"Answer me this: in the UK what social movements of any real significance have been impeded, held back or diluted by the so-called middle classes" - All of them!
@C
"[It] shouldn't mean we accept a 'by any means necessary' attitude to combating climate change, e.g. by giving up what liberty we have."
I.e., ignore the Black Panthers and Suffragettes, social change is made differently?
"With regard to the ongoing argument about Climate Camp being taken over by liberals, students, or whoever else isn't considered appropriate to participate, wouldn't it be a little better to take the time to try and argue and convince these people that anarchist arguments are legitimate and worthwhile?"
Hello... This is what we're doing on here and at the Camp! But at the same time you have to understand this is a losing battle. All power corrupts, power corrupts all, and there is far too much power in the eco-movement centralised around CC. It started as a radical camp and it is slowly but surely becoming less radical. Speakers and supporters can say as much as they like that it is still [as] radical but the problem is you can't take everything at face value.
"I should probably prepare myself for hostility. It's always depressingly predictable watching the left disintegrate into tiny little factions."
I still remember when the camp was not about left or right wing politics but anarchist practice. Criticisms were initially aimed at lefties, oh how the tables have turned...
veg@n
Veg@n - give hir a medal
02.09.2009 08:50
We need to reecognise that the w/c makes up the vast majority of the population. It is only them (us) who have the power (in terms of numbers and economic power) who can force changes in the way the world works.
(for the record: I didn't go to this CC, but did go to the last one.)
lolwob
- Veg@n
02.09.2009 10:21
On a slightly related note, I noticed this article (
C
Homepage:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/aug/30/shell-libyan-gas-oil
aint where your from, its where your at
02.09.2009 11:29
(a)
liberals vs class based anarchists
02.09.2009 17:32
Download: liberals with sledgehammers - mp3 22M
Some real telling moments.
audiophile
Homepage:
http://www.dissidentisland.org/
trolls to you too
03.09.2009 02:07
Zagovor
it was a stressful week
03.09.2009 09:56
The media - the media were allowed unrestricted access on camp. apparently it was agreed that any media would be accompanied by members of the camp legal team and would ask permission before filming or photographing people. this did not happen. whats the point of employing fitwatch tactics and doing workshops on it, if the media can photograph at will. this policy of open access for media puts many people in danger and should not have happened.
hierarchy - there is a definite a hierarchy in climate camp, it may be informal but there are people who seem to know a lot more about what is actually going on and this information does not get filtered down to everyone else. the fact that police had been on site was not mentioned at all in neighbourhood meetings. only those involved in the incident (and those in the know in the climate camp hierarchy ) where police were allowed on site knew anything about it and therefore the rest of us could not voice our opinions and concerns. i also have problems with the legal team, they also seemed to restrict information to those they deemed worthy enough. people were put at risk because the legal team werent completely honest with people who deserve to know a full and frank rundown of legal risks, past history, etc.
privilege - there a lot of people on camp with a lot of privilege. it would have been good to have a lot more discussions on privilege, whether it be based on class, gender, skin colour, ability, age, whether they have children, etc. Personally on several occaissions i was made feel guilty for not being able to take down marquees or cook in the kitchens, the idea of childcare being a valuable and time consuming job was not recognised at all. i also witnessed people being shouted down for excercising the right to block any proposal. people with class privilege telling those without that they dont understand conscensus or the proposal, or that its not acceptable to block a proposal "everybody" wants to go through is patronising and completely out of order.
the police - it does seem to me that the camp craves acceptability in terms of the police. there was uproar at my neighbourhood meeting because somebody had spray painted "fuck the police" on a tent (we were not told the context of this graffitti and that in fact concensus had been broken and police and been welcomed on site by members of the legal team), many people explained disgust at the thought that some people might distust the police, and the term "anarchist" was bandied around in disgust. It felt quite like big brother on site, with the police blatently filming and listening to us. Hardly anybody covered up. and by day 2 everybody was walking around uncovered, talking about actions, letting the media photograph them etc at will. Talk about asking for it. the police have all the info they need without having to fund massive police surveillance operations.
i had an ok climate camp, my children loved it though. it is good for them to experience so much freedom and privilege to run around at will and meet lots of other children. However it felt a lot different than the camp at kingsnorth last year. To me it felt a lot less radical,a lot drier. True concensus did not happen, there was not an open flow of information and it seemed like there was a huge agenda around the media and coming across as well as possible. Witnessing the media team cheering because they had got on the front page of the financial times was surreal and slightly twisted. There seemed to be a lot less anarchists around and perhaps an idea for the next one would be to have some anarchism 101 workshops, and a lot more about conscensus and class struggle. Also discussions about what grass roots activism actually is would be good too.
i heard before someone talking about the fact that the problem about trade unions was that they had lost their radical edge, because the radicals were no longer involved, because we let the unions get taken from us. I think the same is true for climate camp. i think that we (anarchist, radicals, working class people) need to get more involved in the planning for next year. We must not allow climate camp become a playground for privileged people to make a career in the media or environmental ngos. climate camp does belong to everyone, and we must make sure that we are all represented next year, otherwise it really will become some sort of holiday and social networking event for those with privilege.
i stuck it out
re shouted down
03.09.2009 11:10
sounds as if the SWP have taken it over
rADICAL green
@i stuck it out
03.09.2009 22:31
Scrumpy